Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 17, 2026
Assessing Early Stage Open-Angle Glaucoma in Patients by Isolated-Check Visual Evoked Potential
Published on: May 25, 2020
Threshold and variability properties of matrix frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in
Paul H Artes1, Donna M Hutchison, Marcelo T Nicolela
1Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. paul.h.artes@gmail.com
Purpose:
To compare test results from second-generation Frequency-Doubling Technology perimetry (FDT2, Humphrey Matrix; Carl-Zeiss Meditec, Dublin, CA) and standard automated perimetry (SAP) in patients with glaucoma. Specifically, to examine the relationship between visual field sensitivity and test-retest variability and to compare total and pattern deviation probability maps between both techniques.
Methods:
Fifteen patients with glaucoma who had early to moderately advanced visual field loss with SAP (mean MD, -4.0 dB; range, +0.2 to -16.1) were enrolled in the study. Patients attended three sessions. During each session, one eye was examined twice with FDT2 (24-2 threshold test) and twice with SAP (Swedish Interactive Threshold Algorithm [SITA] Standard 24-2 test), in random order. We compared threshold values between FDT2 and SAP at test locations with similar visual field coordinates. Test-retest variability, established in terms of test-retest intervals and standard deviations (SDs), was investigated as a function of visual field sensitivity (estimated by baseline threshold and mean threshold, respectively). The magnitude of visual field defects apparent in total and pattern deviation probability maps were compared between both techniques by ordinal scoring.
Results:
The global visual field indices mean deviation (MD) and pattern standard deviation (PSD) of FDT2 and SAP correlated highly (r > 0.8; P < 0.001). At test locations with high sensitivity (>25 dB with SAP), threshold estimates from FDT2 and SAP exhibited a close, linear relationship, with a slope of approximately 2.0. However, at test locations with lower sensitivity, the relationship was much weaker and ceased to be linear. In comparison with FDT2, SAP showed a slightly larger proportion of test locations with absolute defects (3.0% vs. 2.2% with SAP and FDT2, respectively, P < 0.001). Whereas SAP showed a significant increase in test-retest variability at test locations with lower sensitivity (P < 0.001), there was no relationship between variability and sensitivity with FDT2 (P = 0.46). In comparison with SAP, FDT2 exhibited narrower test-retest intervals at test locations with lower sensitivity (SAP thresholds <25 dB). A comparison of the total and pattern deviation maps between both techniques showed that the total deviation analyses of FDT2 may slightly underestimate the visual field loss apparent with SAP. However, the pattern-deviation maps of both instruments agreed well with each other.
Conclusions:
The test-retest variability of FDT2 is uniform over the measurement range of the instrument. These properties may provide advantages for the monitoring of patients with glaucoma that should be investigated in longitudinal studies.
